Good macro lens choice for T1i

Hello all.

I really enjoy doing macro photography and am thinking about getting a good macro lens.

I currently have a macro filter on my Sigma 70-200 non-IS f2.8 lens. And it works pretty decent. But I have to get really close to shoot stuff with macro and the DOF isnt very far. Also i can't get shots with it without a tripod (i think because my 70-200 lens lacks IS)??

SO, i'm also looking at good macro lens and want to know if a lens is that much better than a lens filter?

As far as macro lens, I'm looking at the canon macro IS 100mm. But I know its expensive, so how much better is it than the non-IS version? I want to be able to shoot some without a tripod if possible. Does the IS versioni provide at least some leeway to shoot without a tripod?

Thanks

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

--
http://www.alexanderrogge.net/arshutterbug.html

Yep - we've read the reviews - real life shooters - preferably those who have had the non is and later version please as I am trying to choose which way to go having begun to feel limitations with Canon ef-s 60mm - just having to get too close. Sorry Op for jumping in but I was about to ask the same question myself, have searched this forum for real discussion on the subject but there hasn't been much.
--
Jayboo

Well, I had the non-IS version and it was excellent, I now have the tamron 60mm f/2 which is a great lens and very versatile. Neither have IS. frankly, true macro photography without a tripod is very hit and miss. Although IS may make some difference, it cannot compensate front to back movement, which is more of a problem with macro than up and down or side to side. If money is an issue, don't hesitate to get the non-IS Canon, but do use at least a monopod.
Neil

... as well as the Tamron 90, Sigma 150, Canon 180L and the Canon MP-E65. Oh .. I also have the Leica 45 IS macro for the Panasonic GH1/G1 and an Olympus OM 50 f3.5 macro.
Concentrating on the two Canon 100s, I'd give my opinion thus:

I usually shoot macro hand-held and for ideal conditions - good light (natural or flash) and reasonable access to the subject ( not shooting at arms length or standing on one foot) I don't believe there is very much difference in sharpness between the 2 lenses at the same aperture. The colour and contrast are similar, but I think the non-L is slightly cooler and the L is a little "richer" in colour - similar to my other L lenses. The background blur for a given aperture/subject distance/background distance is "creamier" on the L lens (more like the 180L), but the non-L is quite OK.

At 1:1 distances there is little to chose between them, as the IS on the L lens is usually rendered mostly irrelevent by the bigger issue of back/front movement (as mentioned by another poster). Both will give outstanding results if you get everything just right.

Where I find the biggest difference between the lenses is when shooting fungi, flowers, butterflies etc. at maybe 1 metre (3') distance and maybe 1:2 magnification in natural light (or in the previously mentioned difficult-to-reach situations). I need at least 1/160 sec with the non-IS lens on a full-frame 5DII and like more shutter speed if I can get it. I get nice sharp shots with the L lens at 1/50th sec and have fluked them down to 1/15th second on occasion. This can make a vast difference when you want f11 for some DOF and you're already using 800-1600 ISO as standard. Mushrooms and other fungi tend to hide in pretty dark spots !

As I said at the beginning - I've tried quite a few macro lenses. I only own the 100L and the MP-E65 for EOS use now.

One minor annoyance with the 100L - it requires both the 72C ringlight adapter and a 67-72mm step-up ring to mount either the Canon ringlight or twin-light macro flash units. I seem to remember that the non-IS had the mounting ring "built-in" - I might be wrong though ;-)
Hope this helps a little ?

p.s. - now for a little heresy - the sharpest 1:1 macro shots are "easiest" to get with the Panasonic G-series and the Leica 45 IS macro. Not only is the lens exceptionally sharp, but the image is corrected for aberations in camera and you get almost 2 extra stops of DOF for any given aperture over a full-frame body, Now if only the cameras where any good above 400ISO we'd be " COOKIN' ! "
--

Judge: ' This image may be better in black and white - perhaps even just black! '

Thanks for your insight Neil - I agree about IS not being really of use for true macro - my feelings are though that I would anticipate using the lens for non macro shots also when IS (for me) is always welcome.
--
Jayboo

If you are doing 1:1 or even more with rings with the 100mm usm macro then you'll need a tripod. Handheld isn't going to be enough. The only solution would be lots and lots of light.

Some people say the IS helps with handholding but I've never messed with the L version. I just carry a tripod when I know I'm going to do some macro.

gekoo said:

If you are doing 1:1 or even more with rings with the 100mm usm macro then you'll need a tripod. Handheld isn't going to be enough. The only solution would be lots and lots of light.

Some people say the IS helps with handholding but I've never messed with the L version. I just carry a tripod when I know I'm going to do some macro.

Click to expand...

I agree with this; maybe if you have a powerful ringlight, it would make handheld feasible, though you'd probably need f/16 to be sure of the DOF if you sway about as much as I do

hmm, so if i understand everyone correctly... the IS will not make ANY difference when shooting macro?? i would think it would help and work fine in certain insituations?

If i can use it for hand held, i want to get this lens, but if I still need to use a tripod MOST Of the time then I will just get a non IS macro lens and save the money!!

As an example, when I use my filter macro lens attachment on my non-IS sigma 70-200 lens, I have to use tripod for macro. BUT my friend has a dedicated Nicon 105mm macro lens with IS and he CAN take shots hand held to some extent. when conditions are ideal, it is no problem for him to snap shots without a tripod, but in some situations he needs to use tripod.

Any thoughts? I dont mind spending the extra money IF i will get use out of the IS... i do want to do alot of macro stuff as it is an awesome way to shoot!!

Also if i'm going to spend that kind of money, are there any COMPARABLE lens's as far as IQ, hand-holding ability, etc? As far as IQ, i can image I could get away with MUCH cheaper lens, however what about with hand-held ability???!

thanks again

If you decide to handhold, IS will help (a bit). If the light is very bright, you'll surely get some acceptable shots. You'll get a higher percentage with a tripod (or a monopod, though less steady they are more versatile and easier to move with). If the light is not ideal the difference will be bigger.

tamron and sigma both make excellent macro lenses too, if you want to save a little money. The sigma 70mm and tamron 90mm both have excellent reputations, though they are not as nice to use as the canon, because they extend when focussing while the canon stays the same length.
Neil

Try some higher iso shots in order to reach an acceptable shutter speed with non-IS macro lenses.The high iso shots from a 500D and especially a 550D were surprisingly good.

My wife uses the 60mm Canon f2.8 macro(no IS,of course) and it's a great,light-weight 1:1 lens.I wish the working distance was a little longer at 1:1(it's 3.5" vs 6.0" on the 100mm).

The 60mm is so light that it makes a great lens to carry along on hikes,etc......or for very petite folks like my wife.

dimyself said:

hmm, so if i understand everyone correctly... the IS will not make ANY difference when shooting macro?? i would think it would help and work fine in certain insituations?

Click to expand...

Did you bother to read my reply from 18 hours ago, where I discussed this at some length? Last post in the thread at the moment.
--

Judge: ' This image may be better in black and white - perhaps even just black! '

Philip - I read your in depth post with much interest - in fact para 4 was enough for me ( obviously combined with reading many reviews of the lens) to go ahead and order one.

While I know true Macro work requires tripod, flash, liveview, manual focussing etc, and I will be doing some of that, I also expect to be using the lens for walking/hiking trips when I know IS will help me get shots I would otherwise miss.

Thanks again for your insight.
--
Jayboo

So I think I decided to get the 100L for hand holding ability. I can always resale later if it doesn't fit my needs...

Has anyone heard of the rumor of 150mm Sigma WITH OS? Any idea when, how much, how it would compare, etc...?